FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION
FILE: 9071/FSC
CASE NAME: Blauzdziunas v. City of Toronto Fire Services
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4, and the Ontario Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07
Diana Blauzdziunas Appellant
-and-
City of Toronto Fire Services (Damion Smith, Fire Prevention Inspector) Respondent
ORDER AND REASONS
ADJUDICATORS: Tammy O’Neill, Vice-Chair, Presiding Member Isaac Lallouz, Member Eleanor White, Member David Hopper, Member Jeroen Louwers, Member
APPEARANCES: For the Appellant: Self-represented For the Respondent: Richard Oliver, City of Toronto Legal Services
Heard in Toronto: January 27, 2015
ORDER AND REASONS
I. ORDER
1This hearing is an appeal by Diana Blauzdziunas (the “Appellant”) of the Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate dated August 6, 2014 (the “Review Decision”), of the Office of the Fire Marshal to the Fire Safety Commission (the “Commission”).
2The Review Decision upheld the Inspection Order made by Damion Smith, an Assistant to the Fire Marshal with the City of Toronto Fire Services (the “Respondent”) with respect to the premises located on Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario.
3It is the decision of the Commission to amend the Review Decision as set out below.
II. BACKGROUND
4The property referenced in the Order is a building 2 storeys in height, brick exterior, with main floor commercial/restaurant and two second floor residential apartments. The Appellant is the tenant of Unit A within the building and does not own the property.
5The Appellant was served by the Respondent with an Inspection Order dated June 5, 2014, under the authority of Section 21 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 (the “FPPA”). The Order was made pursuant to clause c) and f) of Subsection 21(1) of the FPPA. The Order served by the Respondent identified the following:
SCHEDULE 1 – It was found that:
Excessive amounts of combustible material are stored throughout the dwelling unit. This constitutes a fire hazard that will impact on the containment of fire, negatively affect the means of egress for the occupant (s) and first responders and will have a diverse effect on the fire services – fire suppression capabilities.
Failure to maintain access widths in access to exits from all floor areas throughout the dwelling unit, as was originally designed.
SCHEDULE 2 – You shall:
Reduce the amount of combustible material in the dwelling unit to a level acceptable to the Inspector that will negate the above noted fire safety hazards.
Provide access to exit capability from all floor areas throughout the dwelling unit, as was originally designed, to ensure the health and safety of occupants, tenants and emergency services responding to the property.
The Order prescribed a compliance date of July 10, 2014.
6The Appellant requested a Review of the Order dated June 5, 2014, in a letter dated June 26, 2014, to the Office of the Fire Marshal.
7The Decision of the Fire Marshal dated August 6, 2014 was to uphold the Order. The Fire Marshal's Decision stated the following:
Completion of the following actions is deemed to constitute compliance with the Order:
Remove combustibles from around all appliances a distance of 1m, to ensure that there is no accidental ignition. Examples of appliances include, but are not limited to, space heaters, stoves, and refrigerators.
Provide access to exit from each room of the suite, with a 1m clear access to exit throughout. The access route must be clear of any obstructions from floor through to ceiling, with the intent to provide a safe means of egress for the occupant(s) and emergency responders.
Remove combustibles a distance of at least 1m from the ceiling to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm(s) operation.
The Order prescribed a compliance date of September 19, 2014.
8The Fire Marshal's decision to uphold the Order stated the following reasons:
The Appellant has not appealed the Inspection Order, asking only for additional compliance time. Subsequent correspondence indicates the Appellant has been working towards full compliance. The photographs provided by the fire department substantiate the claim that the excessive combustible materials create a fire hazard. Should a fire occur, excessive amounts of combustible materials will affect safe egress of any occupant(s), and emergency responders. Further, the excessive amount of combustible materials will affect fire suppression capabilities. The directions provided in this Decision are more specific than in the original Order and thereby more readily implemented.
9The Appellant filed an appeal of the Decision of the Fire Marshal with the Commission on August 6, 2014.
III. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
10The Commission may confirm, amend or rescind the Order of the Fire Marshal or make such other order, as the Commission deems appropriate.
IV. ISSUE
11The issue the Commission must decide is whether the measures contained in the Order of the Fire Marshal's delegate are necessary to ensure fire safety on the land and premises that are the subject of this appeal.
V. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Appellant
12The Appellant filed an Appeal to the Commission on August 6, 2014. The reasons stated in the Appeal were as follows:
The fire dep. gives only 30 days to correct the problem to everyone. It’s an unfair rule because everyone's situation is different. A person who has to deal with a big house should be given more time than someone living in 1 room/bachelor. Some of my health problem impede on the situation. I ask for max time allowed to resolve this issue.
13The Appellant provided evidence submitting a copy of a letter dated September 30, 2014, from Dr. Farah Tabassum of The Four Villages Community Health Centre stating procedures that the Appellant had undergone from the period March 15, 2012 to present.
14It is the Appellant's position that the Respondent had been unfair in requiring a 30 day compliance date in the Order dated June 6, 2014 and that other properties in Toronto had been given compliance dates of up to one year.
Respondent
15The Respondent, Damion Smith, an Assistant to the Fire Marshal with Toronto Fire Services gave testimony that the building is a 2 storey, brick exterior with main floor restaurant and two second floor residential apartments.
16The Respondent submitted testimony and photographic evidence taken on June 5, 2014, demonstrating the presence of extensive amounts of combustibles in Unit A. It is the Respondent's position that these materials pose a severe threat to the safety of the occupant(s) and emergency responders. The Respondent stated that he was able to push the door open approximately 45 degrees to gain entry into the unit.
17The Respondent submitted evidence in an email dated August 21, 2014, from Lavinia Corriero Yong-Ping, Community Development Officer with the Specialized Program for Inter Divisional Enhanced Responsiveness (SPIDER) Program. Ms. Yong-Ping stated that Toronto support agencies such as SPIDER and the Vulnerable Adults and Seniors Agency had offered the Appellant support but that the Appellant refused stating “No further involvement with City services is required”.
18The Respondent gave testimony and photographic evidence that an inspection of the premises was conducted on January 20, 2015 and that it was difficult to gain access to the unit due to excessive combustible materials interfering with the opening of the door. The Respondent stated that he was able to push the door open approximately 60 degrees to gain entry into the unit.
19The Respondent gave further testimony that a 30 day compliance date is policy for Toronto Fire Services and the Ontario Fire Marshal and that 30 days is normally sufficient to make significant progress to comply with an order.
VI. REASONS
20The Commission accepts the evidence submitted by the Respondent and finds the Order, as amended, is necessary to protect the safety of occupant(s) and emergency responders in the event of a fire emergency.
21The Commission finds that the photographs provided by the Respondent, taken on January 20, 2015, clearly substantiate that excessive amount of combustible materials remain in the premises creating a fire safety hazard.
22The Commission further finds that the Appellant has had ample time and opportunity to remove the combustible materials.
VII. ORDER
23The Order is upheld and amended as follows:
Remove combustibles from around all appliances a distance of 1m, to ensure that there is no accidental ignition. Examples of appliances include, but are not limited to, space heaters, stove and refrigerators.
Provide access to exit from each room of the suite, with a 1m clear access to exit throughout. The access route must be clear of any obstructions from floor through to ceiling, with the intent to provide a safe means of egress for the occupant(s) and emergency responders.
Remove combustibles a distance of at least 1m from the ceiling to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm(s) operation.
24Compliance with the Order shall be initiated immediately with completion by March 2, 2015.
Tammy O’Neill, Vice-Chair, Presiding Member
Isaac Lallouz, Member
Eleanor White, Member
David Hopper, Member
Jeroen Louwers, Member
Issued: February 12, 2015